Wednesday Update – Japan

The Canadian Nuclear Association, which is monitoring events in Japan closely, reports the situation is fluid. International reaction regarding domestic nuclear programs is mixed, with some countries calling for temporary halts to new construction pending assessments of existing facilities.

Updates are also provided by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

Seawater continues to be pumped into Fukushima Dai-ichi Units 1, 2, and 3. Partial melting of the reactor cores at Units 1 and 3 is feared as is potential meltdown at Unit 2. It is now thought that damage to the containment structures is likely at Units 2 and 3.

High levels of radiation from Unit 3 forced workers to retreat temporarily to a safe area of the complex, but work continued one the radiation spike subsided.

The Canadian government reports that radiation from the disaster poses no threat to Canadians.

A balanced approach

Canadian Nuclear Association Annual Conference Report 5

Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall has challenged the energy sector and its public-sector overseers to take a fresh look at how they handle cap-and-trade.

“The major achievements of humankind have been made not by new systems of reporting on balance sheets or shifting, in the case of the current dialogue, emissions around balance sheets,” he told a Canadian Nuclear Association conference audience. “The achievements of humankind have been about technological and innovative achievement.”

Wall said that there has been a lot of talk about cap-and-trade and its potential effect on the North American economy, and while he said his province is “not opposed in principle” to the idea, a new approach is critical.

Moreover, there was no reason why Saskatchewan, which has mined uranium since 1944 and now accounts for a nearly quarter of global output, cannot be in the vanguard. And if it was “first and foremost an innovation challenge . . . why can’t Canada take a leadership position?”

Wall cited a Bruce Power feasibility study which concluded, that nuclear power could be an important element of Saskatchewan’s energy mix and have a major positive economic impact. It also indicated that public support in Saskatchewan is among the highest in the world.

Capitalizing on that sentiment, the province set up the Uranium Development Partnership, presided over by University of Saskatchewan Vice-President Richard Florizone, whose degrees include nuclear physics. Its members also include Patrick Moore, a Greenpeace co-founder.

Saskatchewan is looking at small reactors of the kind installed for decades on aircraft carriers and submarines as a way of providing electricity to remote populations and to generate heat for heavy oil and oilsands deposits, rather than burning fossil fuels.

Wall also challenged the federal government to cede more regulatory sovereignty and shift the focus of environmental due diligence to performance in an effort to speed up the uranium mine and mills approval process. Although he said environmental reviews need both levels of government, he called for a more balanced approach to energy development.

Nuclear gets a nod

Canadian Nuclear Association Annual Conference Report 4

For all that it’s a key component of Canada’s economic health, energy evidently is not a “top of mind” issue nationally, according to a brand-new opinion Ipsos poll commissioned by the Canadian Nuclear Association.

 

However, in presenting his findings at the latest CNA conference and trade show, John Wright, senior vice-president of Ipsos Public Affairs, explained that the national perspective overshadows significant regional awareness of energy issues in general and nuclear power in particular.

The Ipsos research tracks overall attitudes about nuclear energy in Canada for at least two decades and the latest poll of 2,200 Canadians, which has margin of error of +/-2.1 per cent, was completed February 17.

Nibbling through the polling data for an attentive audience, Wright noted that the economy topped the list of concerns at 65 per cent of those polled. Government politics trailed a distance second at 27 per cent, fixing health care was third at 19 per cent, followed by environmental protection at 13 per cent, unemployment at 12 per cent, social issues such as poverty at five per cent, and education at four per cent. International affairs rounded out the list of specified concern at a lowly three percent.

But energy was clearly “not on the radar screen at the moment”, at least as far as national issues were concerned, but it was significantly different at a regional level, particularly in those provinces with large energy resources or contemplating development.

Energy popped up in sixth place with 13 per cent awareness when respondents were asked about provincial issues. That trailed the economy (30 per cent), health care (29 per cent), environment (18 per cent), jobs/unemployment (16 per cent), and education/schools (14 per cent).

Asked whether they felt there was enough electricity in their provinces to meet future needs, 55 per cent of the national sample agreed “strongly” or “somewhat.” Quebec, with its abundant hydroelectric resources, topped that list at 83 per cent while confidence was lowest in Ontario at 43 per cent.

Conservation often is touted as a panacea for growth energy demand, but fully 63 per cent of the national sample were concerned that wouldn’t be enough, the corollary being that more energy production had to be put on line. The fundamental pessimism was widely shared across the country, ranging from 59 per cent in Ontario to 68 per cent in Quebec.

When it came to choosing ways to supplement energy supplies, 97 per cent preferred solar power while 95 per cent would opt for wind generation, 91 per cent hydro, 75 per cent natural gas, 48 per cent nuclear and 24 per cent coal.

The poll results showed that support for nuclear power has been steady compared with other sources, prompting Wright to declare that “the workhorse is nuclear power” even though opinion remains deeply divided with 16 per cent of the national sample “very much in favour” and 28 per cent “very much against.

Support is understandably highest in Ontario, which has the largest number of power reactors in the country, but Wright said that the current level of 67 per cent is likely the ceiling. The only times it has lagged has tended to be when there are reactor-specific issues such as units being taken off-line for upgrading and refurbishing (U&R). That has been the case for much of Ontario’s nuclear capacity, where U&R costs tended to balloon beyond initial estimates and the time needed to do the work meant that generating capacity was off-line for extended period.

U&R of current reactors was clearly preferred over construction of new units in the latest polls, 67 per cent against 49 per cent. In Ontario, although support for U&R has consistently been near or above 70 per cent, a vocal minority has been building in recent years. Support for added capacity in the form of new reactors also has been highest in Ontario.

The good news for the CNA and its myriad suppliers is that 38 per cent of Canadians in the latest poll feel that nuclear energy should play more of a role, bolstered by 35 per cent like the status quo — a total of 73 per cent. And while critics obviously don’t want to hear it, that generally positive image is reflected right across the country.

Wright attributed the continued support to renewed public confidence” in the fundamental safety of the Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. unpressurized heavy-water reactors which have been the unit of choice for Canadian utilities. He suggested that once the public is given all the information – not just the naysayers’ claims – it will tend to come down on nuclear’s side.

“Support nationally rose by 10 points after they’d heard all the arguments for and against,” he said, adding that the “hard” opposition has been diminishing. “The public opinion battle has already been won in key constituencies,” he said.

Even so, he urged the industry to maintain a “steady drumbeat of dialogue and communication” with the public to ensure that investments today in nuclear power will help to address any concerns about security of energy supply while improving the Canadian energy network’s reliability and environmental records. “Nuclear will always be an important part of our energy mix,” he said.

A need for change

Canadian Nuclear Association Annual Conference Report 3

It’s common practice to present conference speakers with a token gift for their efforts. Brad Wall, a 10-year veteran of the Saskatchewan legislature and Premier since November 2007, enjoys these perquisites.

When he mentioned Saskatchewan’s beef industry to one audience, he was rewarded by the industry with some beef jerky and a stockman’s tie. When he told another audience that Saskatchewan accounts for 25 percent of the world’s mustard production, the growers sent him a mustard-coloured tie and pocket square and an assortment of mustards and seeds.

So when he spoke at the Canadian Nuclear Association’s recent annual conference, he joked that he was particularly mindful of his audience. His expectation that “any gifts that I may receive I can actually store at my house” elicited hearty laughter.

From there on, however, Wall was all business. ”By any measure, Saskatchewan is to uranium what Saudi Arabia is to oil,” he said, adding that a significant percentage of homes in the United States can trace their electricity back to his province’s uranium.

(pictured above: McArthur River Mine, northern Saskatchewan). While the industry spends more than $188 million on salaries, wages and benefits in a sector where half of its workers are First Nations or Metis, which Wall believes is unique in North America, simply mining uranium was “not good enough” and he wants to change that.

He pointed out that in July 1949, Dr. Harold Johns of the University of Saskatchewan, visited the Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories near Ottawa to get the country’s first therapeutic cobalt wafer. Installed in a “cobalt bomb” at the university hospital’s new cancer wing, it was used to treat a 40-year-old woman with advanced cancer in November 1951. The patient lived to be 90.

“Just as 1949 was a year of discovery, 2009 can be the beginning of a new era in sustainable nuclear energy development or the next medical application or development in science” Wall said.

Harnessing Canadian ingenuity

Canadian Nuclear Association Annual Conference Report 2 

Long before Hugh Segal’s appointment to the Senate, he was an advisor and associate cabinet secretary for Bill Davis, Ontario’s premier in the 1970s and 1980s. That job put him at the heart of an unprecedented commitment to nuclear power, which today accounts for nearly half of the province’s electricity.

However, he learned that the nuclear industry isn’t just about electricity. Nor is it about the Candu reactor developed by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., or about the nearly 40,000 Canadians who work directly or indirectly in nuclear construction, engineering, design, operation or supplying all of the above. It’s not even about sustaining an energy resource that emits no greenhouse gases or about reducing dependence on fossil fuels.

“It is about whether, as a society, we are prepared to harness Canadian ingenuity, know-how and competence to ensure our own economic future,” he said in a speech at the Canadian Nuclear Association’s recent annual conference. Segal recounted more than a year of legislature committee hearings in the mid-1970 at which safety, the environment, technology and economics were reviewed in “exhaustive” detail. “The core findings were fundamentally in favour of further nuclear development as an integral part of our provincial power grid.”

“If sustainable energy sources, tied to both our national security and economic and social requirements, are to be genuine priorities for Canada, then a serious national program of nuclear power construction must be a national priority. The costs of delay are staggering, and they far outstrip the costs of proceeding now. 

“Add to that escalation the multi-year siting and permitting costs, which are excessive and debilitating,and we have the classic case of situational paralysis. . . . Delay has measurable costs, to the environment, to hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions in productivity.”

Segal cautioned against letting the current economic recession lull Canada into inaction. “Failure to act threatens the core economic and productive base of Ontario. In Atlantic Canada, in Quebec and Ontario, in B.C. and Alberta, nuclear power would add stability and economic growth. Our ability to export power would be enhanced.”

But what about irradiated waste? The spent Candu fuel bundles which are accumulating in storage at the power plants and which have been a target of critics for decades? AECL and others have researched the issue since the 1960s.

“The technology on safe, long-term, spent fuel storage and security is in place,” Segal said, describing himself as a “strong supporter” of the environmental movement. “World-class empirical research on safe storage techniques . . . are scientifically proven and have been essentially certified now by two royal commissions.”

He also noted that France’s electrical grid is 76 per cent nuclear while Belgium’ is 54 per cent and Germany’s is 30 per cent. In Sweden, where anti-nuclear sentiments have influenced governments and forced a moratorium on new reactors for decades, Stockholm recently announced a policy shift by proposing a renewed commitment to nuclear power. And economic requirements in Asia, over time in Africa and even in the Middle East suggested a growing demand for nuclear generation.

“This is not a time to put things off,” Segal said. “It is a time for an act of political will and coherent federal-provincial cooperation. It is a time to seize the opportunity for a better tomorrow by doing what is essential today.”

Minister glows about nuclear

Canadian Nuclear Association Annual Conference Report 1 

Even people who don’t watch The Simpsons might be aware that Homer works at the local nuclear power plant. But how many know the program’s theme music? Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt said she was hoping her staff would sing it for her as she stepped up to the podium at the latest Canadian Nuclear Association conference. But, they disappointed.

Raitt acknowledged that “no economy . . . can grow without a safe, reliable supply of energy and that we need as much of that energy as possible to be clean energy.” Moreover, “nuclear energy will play an increasingly important role in striking a balance between our need for energy and our need to protect our environment.”

She cited the government’s stated and admittedly “aggressive” goal of generating at least 90 per cent of Canada’s electricity from non-emitting sources by 2020 and said some jurisdictions are already moving or at least considering a move to nuclear power: Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and, for the first time, Western Canada.

The industry also was “well positioned to capture some” of the work on the unprecedented number of new reactors planned or under construction around the world.

“As a Canadian, a scientist (MSc from the University of Guelph) and as the Minister of Natural Resources, I have to say that I’m incredibly proud of this country’s nuclear industry. We’ve been a pioneering innovator in the development of nuclear technology and we’ve distinguished ourselves by harnessing this technology and ensuring that it’s operated safely and reliably at home and in other parts of the world. All Canadians will benefit from the success of this industry.”

Nuclear energy is here to stay

Energy is a cornerstone of the national economy – in some regions, the very bedrock – but polls suggest it’s not a “top of mind” issue. A key component in that energy foundation is nuclear energy, a clean, reliable, affordable source. 

But not everyone is in favour of this energy source. Nuclear energy has been a polarizing issue in many Canadian regions. Nuclear energy has its strong supporters, but it also has its objectors. While a recent Ipsos Public Affairs poll found support for nuclear energy has never been higher in Canada, Canadians overwhelmingly prefer other “alternative” sources of power to nuclear.  

Nuclear power has been in the news of late. In January, the federal government allotted $351 million towards nuclear power through Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL). Bruce Power in Ontario is in the refurbishing two nuclear power plants and plans are afoot to refurbish or build new nuclear power plants in  eastern Canada. As well, Alberta and Saskatchewan governments have been publicly musing nuclear operations.

Fact: Canada is one of the world’s foremost nuclear energy producers

Canada is the top exporter of uranium, and 15 per cent of the country’s total electricity is generated in nuclear plants – a deceptively low figure, considering Canada’s nuclear-generated power is intensely regional. The vast majority of the country’s  22 reactors are in Ontario, which generate over half of the province’s electricity. Quebec and New Brunswick each have a single reactor, the latter generating 30  per cent of the New Brunswick’s electricity prior to its being refurbished which began in April 2008 with plans to be operational early in 2010.

Nuclear power has come a long way since the 1970s, offering a viable solution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Where nuclear power is abundant, says Canadian Nuclear Association (CNA) Director of Communications & Media Relations Claudia Lemieux, support is highest. In Ontario, support for nuclear power is the highest in the country, as around two-thirds of the population supports it.

Despite the role nuclear energy plays in Canada, it has received scant attention. “Nuclear hasn’t been part or taught in the broader discussion of energy in schools,” says Lemieux. The CNA had done some preliminary work on educational resources in the mid 1990s, but it was out of date. “It was just left there, and I felt that was such a shame,” says Lemieux. She decided to do something about it.

For the past several years, Lemieux and the CNA have been working with leaders and experts in the nuclear, electricity, political and education realms, and are nearing completion.

The project is nothing less than a fully interactive educational resource for high schools – hopefully to be used as part of a pan-Canadian science curriculum.  

The result is the Nuclear Science Technology High School Curriculum Website. It’s a tool developed to explain concepts, issues and people related to energy and in particular, nuclear energy. The website was developed for the public, for teachers and specifically for students in grades 9 to 12.

The CNA’s motivation for this is twofold: one, the nuclear industry is growing and will need an infusion of skilled labour, and two, statistics demonstrate conclusively that support for nuclear power is directly tied to the amount of information available. Simply put, the more people know about nuclear power, the better they feel about it.   

Clean, reliable, affordable

The information tends to support increased use of and investment into nuclear power. Using nuclear power to produce electricity, Canada annually avoids the emission of 85 million tonnes of greenhouse gases that would be produced using conventional means. That’s about 12 per cent of the country’s total greenhouse gas emissions, or about the same amount produced by 17 million cars and trucks. 

In addition, Canada’s nuclear reactors emit virtually no sulphur dioxide or nitrous oxides, the gases that cause smog and acid rain. Using nuclear power to produce electricity in Canada, we avoid the emission of an additional 10 per cent of these smog and acid rain producing gases of total national emissions.

Reliable can mean “dependable” or “safe.” The evidence suggests nuclear is both. First, it’s the very definition of dependable; unlike other green energy sources such as solar or wind, nuclear power doesn’t depend on meteorological conditions.  

The Canadian nuclear industry boasts an exemplary safety record and a strict regulatory system. In June 2002, a Senate Committee concluded Canada’s domestic nuclear reactors are among the safest in operation anywhere in the world.  

Nuclear power is also increasingly cost competitive when compared to other sources of electricity generation   

The World Nuclear Association (WNA) says nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation, except where there is direct access to low-cost fossil fuels. 

Nuclear energy in Canada

Perhaps, Québec and BC, with their abundance of hydro, don’t necessarily need to examine adding nuclear power.  But, for other  provinces, nuclear is viable both economically, and as a means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As the WNA says, if the social, health and environmental costs of fossil fuels are also taken into account, nuclear is outstanding in terms of cost-effectiveness. Coal and oil-rich Alberta, for example, is considering a nuclear plant.  

So if that’s the good news, what’s the bad news? 

While the Ipsos poll reveals Canadians tend to rank energy low on their list of national priorities, when they do consider energy, they tend to be skeptical. Slightly more than half (55 per cent) felt there was enough electricity in their provinces to meet future needs. In nuclear-dominated Ontario, that confidence was lowest – just 43 per cent. While conservation is broadly supported, 63 per cent of the national sample Felt that conservation efforts will not be enough to offset demand for electricity. 

Broadly speaking, then, Canadians believe more, not less, energy sources will need to be found and/or exploited – while still supporting conservation and green energy in general. 

The bad news is that nuclear tends not to be Canadians’ first choice to fill that void.  

When it came to choosing ways to supplement energy supplies, 97 per cent preferred solar power while 95 per cent would opt for wind generation, 91 per cent hydro, 75 per cent natural gas, 48 per cent nuclear and 24 per cent coal. “While this is what people say they would like to see, it is unrealistic that intermittent sources like and wind and solar can meet demand” says Lemieux. “In Canada, these sources generate less than 1% of electricity generation and require large amount of land. 

Furthermore, nuclear power is while firmly opposed by 16 per cent of Canadians has 48% of strong support which is at record highs in 2009.  

“While there still is a strong anti-nuclear lobby in Canada,” says Lemieux. “Their thinking is firmly rooted in the 70s.”  

The CNA believes increased education and awareness will be on their side. In Canada, the US and Europe, support for nuclear power is always highest where it already exists, and where the most information is available. With the federal government onside, public awareness can only increase.  

Nuclear energy is here to stay

Investing in nuclear energy, including the $351 million earmarked for AECL in the 2009 budget, is part of Canada’s ecoACTION plan, designed to ensure “a cleaner and healthier environment.”  

There are a number of reasons for the federal government’s increased interest in nuclear energy, including growing demand for energy worldwide, rising fossil fuel prices and concerns over global warming. 

If there is a “green energy revolution” in Canada and elsewhere, it seems certain nuclear energy will be part of it.